Grim, no one's stopping you from worrying about whatever you wish.

rpg, the only cherries being picked are on your side of the paddock. The four points I made are demonstratable scientific fact, unless of course your skepticism extends to the laws of physics

I give up... Well almost anyhow.

No amount of sound argument and no number of facts will sway the GW deniers. They, like the creationists that continue to deny evolution in the face of overwhelming evidence supporting it, will not relinquish their faith. Its either blind faith (in what, I'm not sure - perhaps in the concept of perpetual growth) is it not? Or perhaps it is a more sinister mischievousness designed to protect some vested interest or other?

Whatever it is that drives this conscientious denialism the vested interests are winning the war as is evidenced by the useless Rudd governments lamentable back flip on its ETS scheme and their's and the Liberal's unwillingness to go beyond token gestures to "combat" the climate change problem.

And voters don't take the crises seriously enough to dislodge these dinosaurs from office here or anywhere else in the world.

What a fascinating insight into the mind of RPG.
In the first place, I didn't say I believed in AGW. I was pointing out that it didn't matter. The claimed causes of the alleged AGW are real, and need to be addressed, whether they cause climate change or not.
A "hateful little rant"?
Again, I was pointing out that 'righties' tend to think with their chequebooks. Isn't that pretty much a definition of Capitalism?
Surely you couldn't be referring to my wish that you get what you deserve, RPG?
I would have thought most people would want to get what they deserve.
At least, those with clear consciences, anyway.
Dickie, thankyou, you are quite right. I am neither left nor right.
I happen to believe in the power and strength of the free market.
I just wish we had one.

Congratulations Q&A, of all those who posted criticisms (mostly broad-spectrum abuse) of the article you were the only one to raise a valid point, or make a reasonable comment.. it is indeed Keenlyside. I'll ask for that to be changed. However, I'm not sure Keenlyside has been misinterpreted, by anyone very much. As the article notes he is simply modifying IPCC forecasts by adding climate cycles to them - and that is widely recognised. So, as the article notes, if temperatues level peg for the next few years he is looking good. His forecasts will have been put to a test and come up trumps - assuming temperatues behave that way. The only problem that I can see is that his forecasts seem to have enraged the AGW hardliners.. one would think the forecasts would be welcomed as giving the AGW supporters some leeway, but no! Anyway.. tnks...

This is the point, global warming, no identified reason.

So how to influence an outcome when the source of the issue has become less certain, rather than more certain, with the passage of recent times?

I see a lot of cheap shots, suggesting that those who dare to question the conventional wisdom espoused by the climate zealots of the scientific community and their inquisitorial protagonists are to be publically denigrated with words like “Denier”

Well in my book, it is better to be called a “denier” than an “elitist Liar”

It is better to work with facts than the egoistic fantasies of scientists, salivating over some juicy taxpayer grant

It is better to devote scientific resources to address curtailment of global population growth, the base source of anthropogenic global warming, if it exists

than creating more hot air and wasting time speculating on who did which to whom and with what, in terms of counting the carbon molecules in a cubic metre of air.